The delicate balance between landlords’ rights and tenants’ protection lies at the heart of rent control jurisprudence in India. Courts are routinely called upon to adjudicate disputes where landlords seek recovery of premises on the ground of bona fide requirement, while tenants resist eviction on various grounds. One recurring issue is whether a landlord’s financial stability—particularly income from pension or other sources—can undermine the legitimacy of their claim for premises.
Himachal Pradesh High Court in Tulsi Ram v. Mustaq Qureshi (Civil Revision No. 109 of 2016, decided on 2nd September 2025) clarified that a landlord’s pension income is not a perpetual or overriding factor that can defeat his genuine need to recover possession for settling his son or expanding his business.
This ruling reiterates the principle that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirements, and tenants or courts cannot dictate how he should arrange his affairs.
This article provides a detailed examination of the judgment, explores the broader legal framework under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, and situates the ruling within the larger body of Indian rent control jurisprudence.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a shop in Shimla, where the landlord (Mustaq Qureshi) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.
Landlord’s claim
- His elder son was employed in Shimla, while his younger son (then completing school) was staying with him and his wife, acting as their caretaker.
- Due to old age and ailments, he wished to expand his existing small business of gifts and cosmetics.
- The adjoining shop, occupied by the tenant Tulsi Ram, was essential to expand the business and to settle his younger son.
- Since the small existing shop was inadequate, the eviction was necessary to secure livelihood and a future for the son.
Tenant’s defence
- The landlord allegedly harassed him, even damaging the premises.
- He claimed that as the landlord was a retired person receiving a pension, he had no pressing need for the shop.
- It was further contended that the landlord had sufficient accommodation and had even rented out other shops within five years prior to filing the petition.
- The petition was, therefore, not bona fide.
Procedural journey
- The Rent Controller allowed eviction, holding the landlord’s need bona fide.
- The Appellate Authority affirmed the order.
- The tenant approached the High Court under Section 24(5) of the Rent Control Act, which confers revisional jurisdiction.
Issues for Consideration
The High Court examined the following central issues:
- Whether the landlord’s requirement for expansion of business to settle his younger son constituted bona fide requirement under Section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Act.
- Whether the landlord’s pension income defeated his claim of bona fide need.
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act—whether the High Court could re-appreciate evidence or merely check legality and propriety.
Legal Framework
Section 14(3)(b)(i) – Bona Fide Requirement
Under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, a landlord can seek eviction if the premises are required bona fide for their own occupation or for the occupation of a dependent family member.
The proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) requires that the landlord must not already be in occupation of another suitable building in the same urban area and must not have vacated such premises within the past five years without sufficient cause.
Section 24(5) – Revisional Jurisdiction
The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, regularity, and propriety of orders passed by Rent Controllers or Appellate Authorities. It is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction and does not permit re-hearing or re-appreciation of evidence unless findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence.
Findings of the Court
1. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
Relying on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78, the High Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used as a cloak for appeal. The High Court may interfere only if the findings of fact are perverse, illegal, or grossly erroneous.
2. Landlord is the Best Judge of His Requirement
The Court underscored a settled principle: a landlord has complete freedom to choose the premises for expansion of business or settlement of family members. Neither the tenant nor the court can dictate how the landlord should adjust himself. Even if the landlord has multiple options, he is entitled to select the most suitable premises.
3. Effect of Pension Income
The tenant’s main argument was that since the landlord received a pension, he had sufficient income and no pressing need to evict. The Court rejected this contention, holding:
- Pension is not a perpetual source of income—it ceases after the landlord’s death.
- Family members, including the younger son, would not inherit pension benefits.
- Therefore, the need to settle the son in business remained genuine and pressing.
- Financial stability from a pension cannot override or nullify bona fide housing/business requirements.
4. Plea of Renting Out Other Shops
The Court noted that the tenant had not raised the plea of alternative premises in his original reply, nor was any issue framed on this point. Pleadings without evidence or evidence without pleadings cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the landlord specifically established that the shop in question was adjacent to his existing one, making it uniquely suitable for expansion.
5. Delay and Continued Hardship
The eviction petition had been filed in 2012, when the landlord’s son was 19. By 2025, the son had crossed 30 but was still awaiting settlement due to prolonged litigation. This reinforced the urgency and bona fide nature of the landlord’s requirement.
Judgment
The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision, affirming the orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. It held:
- Pension income cannot defeat the landlord’s genuine housing or business requirement.
- The landlord’s claim to settle his son and expand his business was bona fide.
- No ground for interference existed under revisional jurisdiction.
- The tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession by 31st October 2025.
Broader Jurisprudential Context
Landlord’s Freedom v. Tenant’s Protection
Indian rent control laws were enacted to protect tenants from arbitrary eviction. However, courts have consistently balanced this protection with the landlord’s right to enjoy and utilise property.
Key Precedents
- Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla (1991) 1 SCC 422: The Landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
- Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana (1993) 1 SCC 499: Revisional powers cannot be expanded into appellate powers.
- Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252: Courts cannot substitute their opinion for that of the landlord in deciding the suitability of premises.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corp. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78: Limits of revisional jurisdiction clearly defined.
Pension as a Non-Determinative Factor
This judgment strengthens the view that financial sufficiency does not negate bona fide need. Even wealthy landlords can seek eviction if a genuine requirement exists. Courts focus on necessity and suitability, not on comparative hardship alone.
Implications of the Ruling
For Landlords
- The decision reaffirms their autonomy to decide how to use their property.
- Pensioners and retired individuals are assured that their pension will not be treated as an alternative to genuine business or residential needs.
For Tenants
- Tenants cannot resist eviction merely by pointing to the landlord’s pension or financial resources.
- Defences must be substantive, supported by pleadings and evidence.
For Courts
- Reinforces discipline in the use of revisional powers.
- Ensures that litigation is not prolonged unnecessarily when bona fide requirements are evident.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Tulsi Ram v. Mustaq Qureshi is a reaffirmation of the principle that landlords are the best judges of their own needs, and pension income cannot be a ground to defeat genuine housing or business requirements. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing tenant protection with landlords’ rights, ensuring that rent control laws are not misused to perpetuate possession at the cost of legitimate family needs.
By dismissing the tenant’s revision, the Court not only upheld the landlord’s right but also emphasised that a pension is neither perpetual nor inheritable, and cannot substitute the need to settle dependents. This decision thus contributes significantly to the evolving landscape of rent control jurisprudence in India, providing clarity for similar disputes in the future.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams